Brokeback Mountain - Understanding Propaganda

[estesbob]

Gnosis:

Originally Posted by estesbob

I don’t think its really fair to look at monogamy statistics for gay couples, or whether or not they take the oppertunity to get married in the very few places that it is allowed. Not yet at least.

As a homosexual myself, just in the process of coming out of the closet, I’m finding that my fear of being seen as wierd, depraved, or being insulted and attacked by others for my sexuality is a significant obstacle with the guy that I am seeing right now. I feel that we can only be close behind closed doors, which at this point, is really just my dorm room. I am constantly feeling trapped, and its getting in the way of our growth. You may think homosexuality is accepted, but try to hold hands or express love to your parnter in the middle of a crowded street or restaraunt or campus, and you’ll find that there are still significant obstacles. I imagine it is like this for many couples.

I wonder how many inter-racial marriages lasted during the times when it was not socially accpetable, or even legal? How long did those relationships last? I doubt the rate was high. Similarly, the intense social distate for homosexual relationships certainly has a negative affect on their growth.

The homosexual community, which has become more evident in the last thirty years, has spent a very long time being forged on the very fringes of society, already cast out and despised by most, it is no wonder that we have not formed ourselves into a community that is a nice little parallel of your own. How many gay couples could “wait until marriage before they have sex?” Until the last two or three years, marriage was not a concept to homosexuals. We can’t look at same-sex marriage and judge it so early. Its only legal in a fragment of the world.

Especially in the United States, you can not take these statistics seriously. If I am correct, same-sex marriage is only legal in two states. This means that a homosexual couple will only have their marriage recognized in two states out of the entire country, every time they cross a state border, their marriage becomes invalid. Additionally the idea of the Federal Marriage Amendment Act looms overhead. In Canada, same-sex marriage just became legal nation-wide in June.

The homosexual community is simpley going through so many changes so fast that is impossible to guage the final outcome in regards to monogamy. With a new emerging generation accepting homosexuals (hopefully), homosexuality will become normalized and the community can begin to establish itself with norms and some boundaries. But this requires acceptance. You might think that gay people all live in segregation in San Fransisco or on Church St. in Toronto, but they fact is our “community” is dispersed everywhere, there isn’t an oppertunity to establish norms and standards the same way a heterosexual dominated society has.

You attack homosexuals for not being monogomous enough, yet then, you seek to deny them the very institution that exists to secure monogamy?

I didnt attack anything-I stated the facts. I am not denying Homosexuals anything. Their disordered behavior is what denies them marriage-not the law. And no law is going to change that.

 

[fix]

Eileen T:

I just received an email from a friend that had this article by Dr. R. Winfield. It starts by saying:

Dr Winfield goes on to say:

You can read the article in full at thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4115

Thank you for the link. I found it very informative and insightful. I can’t help but contrast that review with the other one posted here a few weeks ago. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Libero]

Heres the exchange:

Quote:
Long live the resistance.
Ha. This almost makes people like Fred Phelphs sound admirable. You wont be propossing protesting with “God hates gays” signs at homosexuals funerals next, will you?

I agree-why just a few posts ago a memeber claimed that those who disagree with him must support Rev Phelps and beleive that “God hates Fags”

Heres the reason I refuse to accept your personal (incorrect) analysis of my comments:

You shall notice the question mark at the end of the comment, also there is an air of sarcasm surrounding the entire comment.

As I have already said, if you do not understand what a person is saying, then you should let them try and explain it to you, or alternatively you could ignore what they say completely. I have never stated that anyone who does not agree with me must be with Mr Phelps, I would not do that anyway, and to imply that I did shows some refusal to accept what is written.

 

[estesbob]

Libero:

Heres the reason I refuse to accept your personal (incorrect) analysis of my comments:

You shall notice the question mark at the end of the comment, also there is an air of sarcasm surrounding the entire comment.

As I have already said, if you do not understand what a person is saying, then you should let them try and explain it to you, or alternatively you could ignore what they say completely. I have never stated that anyone who does not agree with me must be with Mr Phelps, I would not do that anyway, and to imply that I did shows some refusal to accept what is written.

So you didnt mean what you said-Ill have to keep that in mind when I read your posts…

 

[estesbob]

MikeinSD:

You are making a lot of sense. So be careful. Good luck with you and your boyfriend. I promise that being open about who you are does come easier with time.

I think perhaps the moderator should remind him that the forums are no substitue for going to confession, He came into a Catholic Forum and confessed to livng a life of geivious sin. That kind of confession is best left for the confessional.

 

[Libero]

So you didnt mean what you said-Ill have to keep that in mind when I read your posts…

No, you cannot understand what I am saying. I have clearly explained this, I do not understand what you are trying to acheive, if you are attempting to shift the blame for being wrong or something?

Please, ask yourself before replying to a post “do I really understand this”

That will save alot of pointless posting.

Thankyou

 

[ezra1892]

Gnosis:

Originally Posted by estesbob

I don’t think its really fair to look at monogamy statistics for gay couples, or whether or not they take the oppertunity to get married in the very few places that it is allowed. Not yet at least.

As a homosexual myself, just in the process of coming out of the closet, I’m finding that my fear of being seen as wierd, depraved, or being insulted and attacked by others for my sexuality is a significant obstacle with the guy that I am seeing right now. I feel that we can only be close behind closed doors, which at this point, is really just my dorm room. I am constantly feeling trapped, and its getting in the way of our growth. You may think homosexuality is accepted, but try to hold hands or express love to your parnter in the middle of a crowded street or restaraunt or campus, and you’ll find that there are still significant obstacles. I imagine it is like this for many couples.

I wonder how many inter-racial marriages lasted during the times when it was not socially accpetable, or even legal? How long did those relationships last? I doubt the rate was high. Similarly, the intense social distate for homosexual relationships certainly has a negative affect on their growth.

The homosexual community, which has become more evident in the last thirty years, has spent a very long time being forged on the very fringes of society, already cast out and despised by most, it is no wonder that we have not formed ourselves into a community that is a nice little parallel of your own. How many gay couples could “wait until marriage before they have sex?” Until the last two or three years, marriage was not a concept to homosexuals. We can’t look at same-sex marriage and judge it so early. Its only legal in a fragment of the world.

Especially in the United States, you can not take these statistics seriously. If I am correct, same-sex marriage is only legal in two states. This means that a homosexual couple will only have their marriage recognized in two states out of the entire country, every time they cross a state border, their marriage becomes invalid. Additionally the idea of the Federal Marriage Amendment Act looms overhead. In Canada, same-sex marriage just became legal nation-wide in June.

The homosexual community is simpley going through so many changes so fast that is impossible to guage the final outcome in regards to monogamy. With a new emerging generation accepting homosexuals (hopefully), homosexuality will become normalized and the community can begin to establish itself with norms and some boundaries. But this requires acceptance. You might think that gay people all live in segregation in San Fransisco or on Church St. in Toronto, but they fact is our “community” is dispersed everywhere, there isn’t an oppertunity to establish norms and standards the same way a heterosexual dominated society has.

You attack homosexuals for not being monogomous enough, yet then, you seek to deny them the very institution that exists to secure monogamy?

All that you’ve said is beyond true…​

And stop calling homosexuality a disorder! If your theory about homosexuality being able to be treated, can heterosexuals be counseled into becoming homosexual?

 

[Aquarius]

estesbob:

I didnt attack anything-I stated the facts. I am not denying Homosexuals anything. Their disordered behavior is what denies them marriage-not the law. And no law is going to change that.

The law changed it in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands.

 

[Aquarius]

estesbob:

So you didnt mean what you said-Ill have to keep that in mind when I read your posts…

Maybe it would be easier to just read what he said?

 

[estesbob]

ezra1892:

All that you’ve said is beyond true…​

And stop calling homosexuality a disorder! If your theory about homosexuality being able to be treated, can heterosexuals be counseled into becoming homosexual?

I am quoting the Cathecism of our Church

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You seriously err when you condone the homosexual lifestyle. You are condong griveous sin and in doing you make yourself implict in that sin.

 

[estesbob]

Aquarius:

The law changed it in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands.

You can call a pig a rose and that does make it so. You can call a relationship between members of the same sex marriage but that doesnt make it so.

 

[Aquarius]

estesbob:

You can call a pig a rose and that does make it so. You can call a relationship between members of the same sex marriage but that doesnt make it so.

That might lead to a solution. As the laws are changed, those who take advantage of such laws will consider themselves married. So will the government.

Those concerned with pigs and roses can deny they are marriages. I doubt the newlyweds will care.

 

[fix]

From the link in the OP:

Special note must be taken of music and lighting, how they are carefully manipulated to accentuate these contrasts in the manner outlined here, bringing a much deeper impact of the propaganda message. Marvelous tools, music and light illicit emotional responses, and penetrate the subject to effect his core values. The use of props in the juxtaposition of images adds power to the medium. There is a scene where the Heath Ledger character is saddled with his wife and children, struggling among the crowds to watch the fireworks. The opening shot depicts husband and wife, each with a child in one arm, and great square bags full of baby necessities in the other hand. The construction of this frame is identical to the earlier shots of the pack mules heavily laden with similar square heavy supplies. Marriage has turned him into a beast of burden, a theme reinforced throughout.

I do not doubt it is a propaganda piece.

 

[Aquarius]

estesbob:

I am quoting the Cathecism of our Church

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You seriously err when you condone the homosexual lifestyle. You are condong griveous sin and in doing you make yourself implict in that sin.

The Church once said lending money at interest is immoral. Now we have the Vatican bank. Things change.

 

[fix]

Aquarius:

The Church once said lending money at interest is immoral.

Of course, to be fair, you are not mentioning that the meaning of money changed, not the Church’s teaching.

 

[Aquarius]

fix:

Of course, to be fair, you are not mentioning that the meaning of money changed, not the Church’s teaching.

That’s a new one. Can you elaborate?

 

[estesbob]

Aquarius:

The Church once said lending money at interest is immoral. Now we have the Vatican bank. Things change.

The Church’s teaching on Homosexual behavior has been unchanging for 2,000 years. The idea that you dismiss their teachings because over a flap over lending money 600 years ago is complete and utter nonsense, Can you point me to the the document that forbade lening money at ineterest?? Was it declared infallible teaching of the Church? Was is it a doctrine? Can you point us to the document declaring this so we can judge for ourselves???

 

[fix]

Aquarius:

That’s a new one. Can you elaborate?

Sure, as one starting place I suggest this:

“*It is usury to take any interest at all upon the loan of a piece of property, which (a) is of no use except to be used up, spent, consumed; (b) is not wanted for the lender’s own consumption within the period of the load; (c) is lent upon security that obviates risk; (d) is so lent that the lender forgoes no occasion of lawful gain by lending it” (Rickaby, 258).

Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not* a change of the Church’s teaching on usury. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. "Still she maintains dogmatically that there is such a sin as usury, and what it is, as defined in the Fifth Council of Lateran "(ibid., 263).
The Red Herring of Usury

 

[Aquarius]

fix:

Sure, as one starting place I suggest this:

I think the pope disagreed.

]Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 November 1745./I]
"*I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. **This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. **The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

"II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the **money *borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions."

 

[estesbob]

Aquarius:

The Church once said lending money at interest is immoral. Now we have the Vatican bank. Things change.

So we are free to sin at will under the assumption that the Church is going to change the rules? The idea that Homosexual behavior will some day be accepted by the Church becaiuse of a flap over what constitued usury several hundred years ago is nonsense. I would cretainly not put my immortal soul on the line based on such a straw man.

I will have to hand it to you however-you have deftly changed the subject. Easier to mock Church teachings than adhere to them.